Before going Digital with your business....

Here is a completely financial thought on the subject of your studio

going digital if you are currently a film shooter.

 

If you shoot film, when it's in the "can" you drop it at the lab and

later you are returned your photos. That is all there is to it. If

you shoot digital, you rarely send the shots to the lab for proofing

or printing without converting from RAW, diddling the levels etc. on

each image on your office computer to perfect it.

 

If you shoot a $3,000 job and it takes you 10 hours from start to

dropping the film at the lab, you are grossing $300 an hour. If you

shoot digital and spend (we will make this easy as it is just an

example) another 10 hours at the computer you just dropped your

hourly gross to $150 an hour.

Meanwhile, while you were doing the computer work, you could have

been out shooting another job for $300 an hour, so your computer

time has just cost you $450 an hour (gross).

 

Well, let's say you are not THAT busy, and you do digital work, and

spend the time at the computer at the above rates, you are still

devaluing your hourly rate by half and if you are not that busy you

could be working another (non photography) job so you are STILL

devaluing your hourly rate AND losing the money you could be making

working a side job.

 

Even if you decide to hire a person to come in and do the computer

work for you, you have to pay them PLUS pay FICA, Taxes and

benefits.. so you still lose something off that hourly rate in the

cost of doing business.

 

Just a thought on this that is 100% financial in outlook..

I have one customer and one of their large events requires something like 1,200 4x6-inch prints in 3 or 4 days of shooting. There is no way in this life I would want to sit at my computer and try to get 1,200 prints ready to print. Plus the cost of inks, paper, and as you noted -- time -- to complete such a task. On top of that, it gets dusty shooting some days. A good place for a digital rig, no thank you.

"Just a thought on this that is 100% financial in outlook.."

 

However, it neglects the issue of clients wanting digital if you shoot film. What happens if you factor in the Do It Yourself costs vs paying a specialist for scanning and tweaking? And so forth.

 

You've left out too many important factors that need to be considered before the financial picture will be at all clear.

Interesting perspective... I'll play a little devils advocate here...

 

When you shoot those 10 hours,

regardless of format, you are going to spend time reviewing, culling, and in general "processing" the results. If it's slides that process is

over a light box, if it's negatives you process the proofs. In addition

there is the media cost, although insignificant in this equation, they are still there.

 

I've found that my processing time on Digital is quite a bit less than

it used to be with film products, and the computer time is spent on the "usable and selected" final output, not every shot.

 

In addition there is the turn around, shipping, cataloging, storage, and handling time for the processing of the film product. I can have

digital product sold and shipped before the proofs return from the lab.

 

How do we address these factors in the above sceanario?

 

Just wondering...Greg

 

ps - must admit I'm a little biased as I did film only for 6 years

and have done almost all digital for the last year.

<i> f you shoot film, when it's in the "can" you drop it at the lab and later you are returned

your photos. That is all there is to it. If you shoot digital, you rarely send the shots to the

lab for proofing or printing without converting </i><p>

 

You can upload or hand over digital images for processing, just as you can with film,

Nancy. And look how quickly pros are migrating to digital -- it seems that pros have

considered financial implications you haven't.

<i> I have one customer and one of their large events requires something like 1,200 4x6-

inch prints in 3 or 4 days of shooting. There is no way in this life I would want to sit at my

computer and try to get 1,200 prints ready to print. </i><p>

 

Do/did most pro event film photographers print their own film? Of course not.

Likewise, digital shooting does not mean you must also print yourself.

What Mr. Z says...

 

Just take your files (on a CD or memory card) to Costco/WalMart/Ritz/whatever and have

them make prints for you. Just like film.

I don't understand these kinds of posts. I figure someone would spend some time researching before making a post like this. Instead, the reality of the situation is ignored, as �[�Z and Brad point out, and for what purpose?

Yes, I agree that one should look at the financial pros and cons before switching to digital in one's business. However, I strongly suggest that one watch NET revenues, in addition to gross revenues.

 

For the above example, essentially what you are doing by dropping off the film at the lab is the equivalent of paying someone to come in and do the computer work for you. By using film, you may be grossing $300 an hour, but you will be netting $3,000 less the cost of film, processing, etc. Because this is such a variable amount, I won't give a hypothetical example. This is something that each business owner much decide for him or herself.

 

For my particular business, using digital has profited me greatly. I take actors' headshots, and due to the way I work, I don't know exactly how many shots I am going to take in a given session. Because I shoot digitally, my cost per shot does not change. For example, today my client and I had reached the number of shots we had agreed that I would take (180) when we decided to try something else. I shot about another 90 shots in the next 30 minutes, and it didn't cost me a penny more. I just saved the cost of film, processing, and contact sheets for 3 extra rolls.

 

The other option is that I could have said that we had finished our session and not shot the extra photos, but I believe that because I was shooting digital, I had the financial flexibility to give my client something extra. Hopefully, that something extra will encourage him to refer me to other actors. Referals = Free Advertising = Good for my net income.

 

I would not recommend that all photographers immediately switch to digital. Nor would I recommend that all photographers shoot film. I would recommend that all photographers carefully weight the financial (and non-financial) costs and benefits of both film and digital before making such a decision.

"If you shoot digital and spend (we will make this easy as it is just an example) another 10 hours at the computer you just dropped your hourly gross to $150 an hour. Meanwhile, while you were doing the computer work, you could have been out shooting another job for $300 an hour, so your computer time has just cost you $450 an hour (gross)."

 

WHY OH WHY do film fans always assume that A) a digital camera is "obsolete" the day an upgrade comes out, and B) getting decent prints from a digital requires hours and hours of tweaking in Photoshop???

 

Last time I shot at a friend's house he wanted a couple prints of his daughter then and there. So I plugged my 10D directly into his Canon ink jet and printed some 4x6's, no computer, no Photoshop. NEWS FLASH: straight from the camera they were far better quality than most 1 hour lab work I've seen, and pretty much the equal of the few pro labs I trust.

 

Granted, to extract the most from an image requires some custom post processing. But this is true of ALL photography, film and digital. Ansel Adams didn't spend all his time in a darkroom using Photoshop! And I have yet to spend as much time perfecting a select 10D print as I used to spend perfecting a select film print. This is generally because my 10D images are closer to being right to begin with. Which is why I'll trust my 10D for "mass prints" over film any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

I quite frankly don't see the difference between dropping off film at a lab or dropping off a CD-R, except that the CD-R images stand a better chance of coming out good. You're kidding yourself if you think some pro photographer at your favorite lab is spending hours and hours hunched over your film in a darkroom tweaking and perfecting every single print to the same degree that a digital photographer does with a single, special print.

This was not meant to be a digital vs. film debate, but a discussion of finances of one verses the other and a reminder that, as a professional, you do need to put a value on your TIME.

 

As a professional Photographer who has worked in BOTH mediums, the processing (printing) is done by a lab. It is the PRE PROCESSING that must be done with digital that is the issue.

 

Professionals ARE using a lot of digital and it is a good medium, but post camera and pre proofing, MOST (note this is different that ALL) pros take RAW files and convert them to JPEGs and then alter each image that is a keeper (there are a few culls with either medium). This is commonly done in PhotoShop and altered BEFORE proofing (levels adjusted, Brightness/contrast, stauration, hue etc etc.) Not EVERY image needs to be adjusted, but most pros do adjust each one some. After adjustment, a Compact Disc is sent to the professional lab for proofing.

 

Very few professionals that I know use anything other than a professional lab for prooofing (IOW they do not drop their expensive compact flash cards off at WalMarts or Walgreens GEEZE!!!) They DO send their CD's off to a pro lab. Most professionals do NOT print their own digital files anymore than they do film negatives.

 

Film is a cost, but it is a small cost in the face of the cost of switching to digital, so I did not count it in.. and I was discussing GROSS income and not net.

 

Net income varies widely and often depends on individual efficiency and overhead and individual ability to handle money.

Oh yes.. and in answer to the straight out of the camera thing.. I worked for and with a full time 100% digital professional. He is VERY good. He has to be with the cost of living here and the competition. He would NEVER use a 1 hour photo place for film (GEEZE!! Again) and he shot RAW and converted to Jpg (as is the common practice) and then he most certainly did alter images prior to sending a CD R off to a lab for proofing. His proofs are, BTW, beautifully done in a finished proof book.

 

I would certainly hope that MOST professional photographers could print out a simple inkjet print better than MOST 1 hour labs but then, as previously stated, I know of NO professional photographers who are making their living at photography who use WalMarts or One hour photo labs etc.

 

The faults one sees from One Hour photo labs (blown highlights on flash subjects, for instance) is often the PRINTING. Check the negative and see if it has detail.

 

The issue I brought up originally has nothing to do with film or digital producing better images. Both do a comendable job. I am just saying the cost savings of film (and that is IT for savings on cost because either medium gets printed by a professional lab) over the time it takes to prepare images for printing if you are going digital should be considered.

If you're a pro who does not know how to use PS actions to quickly create proofs you can

use to choose what to print, then you're not working smart. I again note that Nancy is

somehow ignoring the tremendous number of pros who successfully migrated to digital

without the problems she describes. Why is that?

I think this "financial thought" is narrow minded.<br/>

Digital lets you make use of the computer. Steve jobs said once that the PC was a "bicycle of the mind".<br/>

You already have software that can do all the post processing for you. These software make smart decisions based on complex computing algorythms.<br/>

As more and more people go digital, the market for these software is going to expand, and more R&D will be going into perfecting these.

Pretty soon there will be no need to do any manual post-processing anymore.<br/>

I never said that you could not have success with digital photography. As stated above, I worked with a professional who is VERY successful who is 100% digital. The list of pros who are successful with digital is long and illustrious.

 

My original approach was a strictly narrow view about money and value of one's time. IOW if you are at the 'puter and you could be shooting another job, you are losing money if you cannot because you are at the computer.

 

I am also not arguing the benefits artistically or otherwise of PhotoShop or other digital imaging software. I use this software doing project renderings for construction (bridge) projects. Want to see what the new bridge will be like in this location? Here ya go!

 

Getting back to the original comment, it just seems to me that this issue of value for one's time is overlooked when switching to digital. When you are doing processing work you are taking time. Can this time be better spent earning more money? It is a valid question and one that needs to be looked at before going digital or before totally trashing film.

 

Personally? I think that my business future sees both media in my studio. I do see a lot of pros saying they spend "too much time at the computer."

 

I learned, in another business that I owned and operated with success, that time is money. Efficiency and time spent at taskes can be the difference between making a profit and losing money.

 

I will not say that you cannot make money or do a good job with digital. Many do both. I am just saying you might be losing money and this is worth thinking about before you jump in 100%.

Ms.Stock is 100% correct about the time factor.Digital work flows dictate fiddling with images that other wise would go straight to the lab with film for processing.Now days wedding shooters burn CD's during downtime at weddings,these come home and get "tweaked" prior to going outsourced for printing.Many digital shooters claim they enjoy sitting in front of their computers for hours,Id rather have a root canal!The reason one chooses digital wedding shooting is creative control,not to save time or money.In fact with the cost of hardware,training and time factored in,most digital wedding pros have to raise their prices.

<i> My original approach was a strictly narrow view about money and value of one's time.

IOW if you are at the 'puter and you could be shooting another job, you are losing money if

you cannot because you are at the computer. </i><p>

 

You can drop off digital images to a lab just like film ... but you are ignoring that. Or you

can set up PS actions to perform basic tasks quickly on your own. If you don't it's your own

fault.

Digital workflows do not dictate anything.<br/>

Fiddling with the images is your decision.<br/>

What you dont understand is that the computer can do the fiddling for you too.<br/>

Try asking that from a darkroom enlarger.<br/>

I cant believe these people are negating the main advantage of digital and the primary reason for wich professionals are going digital, which is: To spare time and cut costs.

We shot a 2 day event. I printed a few 8x10's of the

shots from day 1, spent 30 min on the box.

Got 15 orders for 8x10 prints that morning (day 2).

Printed them on the spot and delivered and went home with cash in hand.

 

Handed out biz cards to anyone and everyone with "If you like this set, go look on the web site next week and the rest will be there."

 

Shot day 2 - went home spent 8 hours processing (about the amount of time I would have spent on the processing and proofs) and loading to web site. NO FILM COST, NO PROCESSING EXPENSE, NO MAILING, NO PROOFS, NO WAITING. (WALMART !!! who said WALMART?? GEEZ indeed Louise )

 

The next day orders started to arrive via email. (Why would anyone in thier right mind print 1200 proofs of electronic images? Photo paper doesn't even burn that well...;{)

 

In time it would have taken to send out, process, print, and return post process those 2 days shots (as an overhead expense) I made enough to pay for the computer time. The major point is every print was for money (I even sold the samples).

 

Nancy quoted "Time is money." - YEP you got it!

 

6 months later still getting orders, meanwhile I'm off doing other jobs...

Nancy has a good point.This is an observation that I often read in more business-oriented lists many times. Of course, there are many more factors in the digital/film business issue, most of them pointing towards digital.

 

It's also no rocket science to batch convert images

from RAW (and I am sure Nancy knows that), but since most

professional take pride in their work, and

know that RAW batch conversion (or shooting in JPEG) does not yield optimal results, in general they will convert by hand. In other words, it's not something you have to do, but it is something that the digital workflow invites. With

film, since there was no such pre-processing available, you wouldn't

spend the time.

 

<a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/stock-photography.html">Terra Galleria stock photography</a>

It doesnt sound like most of the posters here have ever shot professionally with digital or film.Being a professional website contributor,and being a photographer is two different things.

I consider it folly to consider only what one grosses and not what one nets--just as as I consider it folly not to consider the value of one's time. A business plan that does not include all income, expenses, assets, and liabilities is hardly a business plan at all.

 

The fact is that every business is different, and one must carefully consider all options before making important decisions. Film has certain costs that digital does not, and vice versa. These costs must both be applied to one's business plan.

 

Because one can take digital photos to a lab (just as one can process film in one's own darkroom) I don't feel that saying digital inherently takes more time can rightly be stated. In my opinion, the single largest financial difference between film and digital is between the ongoing cost of film and development and the one-time cost of digital equipment.

<I>f you shoot digital and spend (we will make this easy as it is just an example)

another 10 hours at the computer you just dropped your hourly gross to $150 an

hour.</I><P>Especially if you are stupid enough not to charge for that time.

Commercial, PR & Advertising clients expect tfor there to be film, polaroid &

processing charges. And on top of that there are going to be scanning charges.

Guess what? Since you are now the lab when you shoot with a digital camera, you can

charge for these services. It is a legitimate cost of doing business.

Pardon me if I still dont get it. If Nancy is worried about lost opportunity costs, why doesn't she just batch convert from RAW?<br/>

Would that yield images inferior to those produced by film photography?